One of the nice things about being the resident opposition at the Financial Review is that, as well as lots of letters, my articles often attract full-length replies. Mostly these are from right-wing thinktanks, but on several occasions they’ve been from government ministers I’ve managed to prod into a response. This kind of thing tells me I’m doing my job (of course, I also welcome support in the form of letters to the Fin or directly to me).
Today’s Fin (Subscription required) has a piece from Ian Campbell, the new minister for the environment, responding to my piece on Kyoto, which I’ve placed over the fold. I’ve heard that my piece, which I thought was pretty mild, upset the government, and that the original draft was considerably hotter than the published version. I’m pleased to say that I agree with a substantial part (though not all) of Campbell’s intro which reads
Without intervention projected changes in global temperatures are expected to cause major environmental and economic impacts on agricultural industries, on human health, on businesses and through a greater number of extreme weather events such as heatwaves, drought, bushfires, storms and flooding.
Contrary to John Quiggin’s assessment (AFR, December 2), it’s precisely because Australia understands that climate change will not go away that we are working to meet our Kyoto target. However, we do not believe the protocol is an effective response to climate change.
At least on the science, this is a clear-cut rejection of the wishful thinking that still seems to have plenty of supporters.
The recent receipt by the United Nations of Russia’s formal ratification of the Kyoto Protocol has started a 90-day countdown. The protocol will come into force on February 16 with Australia and the United States the only major countries that have failed to ratify it.
TD
At the same time, the scientific evidence of human-caused global warming has become overwhelming. The last piece of serious evidence against the global-warming hypothesis was the satellite data on temperatures in the upper atmosphere, first analysed by John Christy of the University of Alabama. Ten years ago, Christy’s data showed declining temperatures in the troposphere, the opposite of the surface trend and of the predictions of climate models. Sceptics used the data to suggest that the models, or the surface data, were wrong.
But improvements in analysis and more data have reversed this finding. Christy’s data now shows an upward trend, though not as rapid as that in the surface data. Alternative analyses show a stronger upward trend. This work has been reinforced by hundreds of other studies, and Christy himself has acknowledged the reality of human-caused global warming (although he still thinks it will be less damaging than is suggested by standard models).
There are, of course, plenty of people who will stick to a self-described “sceptical” position, on the basis of ideological commitments, financial self-interest or simple ignorance. However, the number of independent, practising climate scientists around the world who agree with them could be counted on the fingers of one hand. In these circumstances, the “sceptical” position is one of faith-based wishful thinking.
These developments have fatally undermined the Howard government’s position, which involves committing Australia to reach the Kyoto targets for reductions in emissions, while not ratifying the treaty. Such a position made some sense while there was a reasonable chance that the whole problem would go away or if there was a chance to produce some alternative policy option more favourable to Australia.
It is now as clear as it is ever going to be that the climate-change problem is not going to vanish. As for alternative policy options, they have been doomed by the unwillingness of the Bush administration to take any serious action. The most promising such option was the McKibben-Wilcoxen plan, put forward by Australian economist Warwick McKibben and his US colleague Peter Wilcoxen.
A crucial argument for the plan was that, because it fixed the unit cost of mitigation, it would be more appealing to reluctant Kyoto signatories such as the US. But the Bush administration wasn’t interested, and once the Kyoto Protocol is in force, no one else will be either.
Under these circumstances, a policy of meeting the Kyoto targets but not ratifying the protocol leaves Australia with all the costs of Kyoto and few of the benefits. Most obviously, Australian businesses are in effect excluded from international trade in emissions rights. With Australia having taken a leading role in pushing reluctant European governments to adopt a system of tradeable emissions, rather than fixed national targets, this is a perverse outcome.
This point was illustrated by the recent estimate of the Australian Farm Institute that, in the absence of tradeable permits, restrictions on land clearing were costing Australian farmers $600 million a year. While there are complex issues involved here, it is evident that the sooner we implement a tradeable permits system, the sooner we can move towards a rational policy on climate change.
Our failure to ratify Kyoto also weakens our bargaining position in relation to the really tough issue: what to do to reduce emissions beyond the Kyoto targets when the present bargaining period expires in 2012. Our government expended a lot of diplomatic capital driving the hardest possible bargain on the current targets. Whereas most other developed nations agreed to reduce emissions below 1990 levels, we demanded, and got, an 8 per cent increase. Clearly, if we are not signatories, we can’t expect anything like this generous treatment next time around.
Sooner or later, the reality of global warming and the need for international support on other issues will force the US to ratify Kyoto. Because of its central importance as the world’s largest energy user, the US will undoubtedly get the chance to come in on favourable terms, no matter how long it waits. The same is not true for Australia. If we don’t grab the favourable terms we secured at Kyoto, we will certainly not be offered the same chance next time around.
John Quiggin 
I think there is a non-sequitor there. It is (probably) warming. Humans are (probably) contributing. However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the government should introduce a policy that costs billions of dollars. Kyoto always had several hurdles to jump… not just agreement on the existence of warming.
But I guess I’m either a hopeless ideologue, being paid for my opinion or ignorant. Q, the way you get in your pre-emptive insults may make you a hero to those who already agree with you — but they aren’t exactly good for encouraging friendly debate. A little Tim Blairesque perhaps.
I notice, JQ, that you claim that “Australian businesses are in effect excluded from international trade in emissions rights”. Ian Campbell, in a ministerial press release dated 6 December (http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/2004/mr06dec204.html)
says “under Kyoto rules, companies from countries that are not parties to the protocol were not automatically shut out of carbon trading or projects under the Clean Development Mechanism.
“Mechanisms for establishing a trading system are still in the development stage and there remains uncertainty as to how large or effective a market for carbon credits will be, what the transaction costs might be and how individual countries will interpret and apply the rules.”
Why should I believe you and not him?
John H., if you’re insulted by a phrase like “wishful thinking”, you’re probably too thin-skinned for the blogosphere. However, since pre-emption doesn’t seem to work anyway, I will avoid it in future.
Alex, read Campbell’s statement again: it’s about as weak a denial as you can make. I say we will very probably be excluded, he says it isn’t automatic, but he gives no reason to think I’m wrong.
Yes, but you’re both in the realm of the hypothetical. You haven’t given a reason for me to think he’s wrong, either.
If you read the article, you’ll see my reasons for saying that, as a nonsignatory, Australia’s position is very weak.
JQ, a further comment – given that the EU is on track to considerably exceed its Kyoto targets (see http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/news/efe/15/article_440_en.htm) whereas we look to be on track to meet ours (at least according to the government) I would have thought that might put us in a somewhat stronger position for the next round of negotiations than you suggest. It is surely going to be difficult for the Europeans to point the finger at Australia as environmental villains if they have failed to meet their target.
“Humans cause global warming” is a pseudo-religious belief. I have yet to see ANY science that proves we make any substantial change to the temperature of the earth.
The argument seems to be:
The earth might be getting warmer.
Humans exist and have industry.
Therefore humans must be causing it.
The same logic says we are causing the expansion of the universe as well.
To the Kyoto faithful, I ask these questions:
When the earth went through the “medieval summer”, was that our fault?
When the Thames froze a few hundred years ago, was that our fault?
Apart from the ice ages, we are currently in one of the colder periods of the earth. So when it was REALLY hot millions of years ago, what caused that?
Perhaps you believe the dinosaurs should have signed a treaty to reduce their emissions.
Senator Ian Campbell, whom I know personally, has merely asked his department to provide a statement. Whether he personally believes in anthropogenic global warming is another matter – personally methinks it is a political position, rather than a scientific one.
But the serious demolition of Kyotism is under way and it will be interesting to see the political maneuvering once the, not insubstantial, physical scientists become involved and show Kyoto for the political sham it is.
“we look to be on track to meet ours (at least according to the government)”
Your faith in the government exceeds mine, Alex. If we are getting anywhere near our targets it is because of restrictions on land clearing, and the capacity to count land clearing in a favorable was a concession we extracted at Kyoto. If we don’t ratify, there’s no reason to suppose we are doing the same.
wpc, when you say “I have yet to see ANY science that proves we make any substantial change to the temperature of the earth” does this mean that you haven’t read the thousands of papers on this topic, or that you are an eminent, and busy, scientist who has managed to read and refute each of them?
John H, you’ve missed the point completely. What costs us is hitting the emissions target, which the government has committed us to, and it looks like we’re going to hit it.
Having incurred the costs, we would gain some benefit in selling the carbon credits. But the government won’t sign Kyoto so we miss out on the benefits.
The government’s policy position is therefore: we should incur the costs of doing our bit to reduce global warming, but not try get any offsetting benefits that might reduce the net costs.
This is, quite simply, nuts.
And all because in a weak moment John Howard promised to George Bush that we wouldn’t sign Kyoto.
Following wpc’s lead,
I have yet to see ANY science that proves that the sun is hot.
I have yet to see ANY science that proves that smoking causes lang cancer.
I have yet to see ANY science that proves that natural gas is made up of carbon and hydrogen.
I have yet to see ANY science that proves that influenza is caused by a virus.
I have yet to see ANY science that proves that if I drop an object, it falls to Earth because of gravity.
I have yet to see ANY science that proves that anything I don’t want to see proved because I just don’t. So there!
And following Louis, the serious demolition of all these propositions is under way and it will be interesting to see the political maneuvering once the, not insubstantial, physical scientists become involved and show them for the political sham they are.
God I get confused nowadays.
People like frank devine and others in the murdoch press tell me that global warming is a greenie plot.
Now we have the federal minister in a government that won’t sign the kyoto agreement telling us that global warming is real.
I want to know why there is a junket to argentina for a minister and staff who don’t believe in kyoto?
Firm grasp of the scientific method you’ve got there, wpc. Show us your scientific proof that CO2 cools or is neutral to global temperature and I’ll be happy to allow your untrammelled rights to further hot air emissions.
Heh. That sounds like a Something Awful in-joke. Lemme try…
I have yet to see ANY science that proves that getting donged over the head with a cricket bat hurts.
As I have asked before, can anybody out there refer me to estimates of the economic impact of global warming on Australia, and/or estimates of costs of complying with Kyoto?
wpc has yet to see ANY evidence. This is probably because he (or she) hasn’t looked for any… it sounds like the old if i cant see it, then it musn’t exist theory.
Gordon — google search… those studies are all over the place.
Q — I never mentioned the words “wishful thinking”. I wasn’t offended, but after reading your post I was more inclined to respond as though we are in combat and not in a conversation. If that is what you’re after (and some people are — e.g. Tim Blair) then no adjustment is necessary.
Uncle Milt — I wasn’t defending the Howard government… I agree their position is weird. I was defending the idea of being a Kyoto skeptic without necessarily being a total fool.
In (partial) defence of wpc — it is possible that human activity and global warming is correlated, but has no direct causal relationship. On the basis of what I currently know, I think there probably is a causal relationship… but I’ve been wrong before and I wouldn’t bet my house on it. There is still a lot about the universe that humans don’t understand.
Australia meeting its targets:
Perhaps the accounting for greenhouse emissions from land use change and forestry is sufficiently dodgy that the government could just jiggle the numbers to ensure that our overall national greenhouse emissions look respectable?
You can see this on the graph on page 3 of this fact sheet about land use change and forestry from the most recent national greenhouse gas inventory.
If you read the blurb under the graph, you will see that 2000 and 2001 are described as estimates, and the data for 2002 is simply an average of the previous two years. In addition, they indicate in the blurb that once improve their data, the 2000-1 emissions from this sector will go UP, ie they’ve estimated lower that they actually expect?????
I wonder how accurate the rest of the data is?
Perhaps you can reduce the costs of complying-but- not-ratifying by preparing data to say that you are complying, without complying in reality?
Steve
What even funnier is the common excuse that the poor countries aren’t commited so why should we.
Well poor countries can’t commit to beating malaria because they don’t have the funds. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. As leaders of a developed country we need to set the example and take the lead. I remember the poor countries couldn’t commit to reducing CFC, but in the end they mostly followed our example.
Are we leaders or followers?
The argument seems to be:
The earth might be getting warmer.
Humans exist and have industry.
Therefore humans must be causing it.
Oh so wrong.
It goes more like this:
The earth emits lots of IR radiation.
Greenhouse gases absorp IR radiation.
Humans produce greenhouse gases.
Hence human activity is causing a warming influence on the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.
As I have asked before, can anybody out there refer me to estimates of the economic impact of global warming on Australia, and/or estimates of costs of complying with Kyoto?
I’m not sure about Australia, but a recent literature review found that the non-climate costs of Kyoto for the US were “insignificant”, +/- 1% of GDP.
(Barker and Ekins, The Energy Journal, 2004, 25, pg 53)
Its not from a peer-reviewed journal or anything, but this report prepared for the NSW and VIC govts argues that it will cost Australia more to ratify than not.
The report was prepared by the Kyoto Ratification Advisory Group, and uses Monash University’s Centreof Policy Studies’ MMRF–GREEN general equilibrium model for the economic modelling.
The group consists of:
– Mr Peter Duncan (Chair) former chief executive of the Shell group of companies in Australia;
– Ms Gwen Andrews, former Chief Executive of the Australian Greenhouse Office;
– Professor John Hewson, former leader of the Australian Liberal Party and currently Chair of Global Renewables Pty Ltd;
– Mr Jon Stanford, Executive Director of The Allen Consulting Group; and
– Mr Phillip Toyne, former Executive Director of the Australian Conservation
Foundation and currently head of EcoFutures Pty Ltd.
Wow – what a bad typo *blush*. The KRAG report actually says it will cost LESS to ratify than to not ratify.
Sorry bout that.
JQ, re government statements that we are on track to meet our Kyoto targets – is there any good reason for the government to distort the facts on this, given that whether we have or have not will be scrutinised in great detail (no doubt) by the rest of the world in 2012? I don’t see how there is significant political mileage in lying now, then being caught out later. If we aren’t on track, wouldn’t they be more likely to be looking for someone to blame?
And a further point – you seem quite happy to accept at face value EU reporting on their greenhouse position. Why wouldn’t they be lying too?
Alex, you “don’t see how there is significant political mileage in lying now, then being caught out later”.
Lying now and being caught out later is a proven big-upfront-benefit / small-down-the-track-cost strategy. Recent elections in Aus & the US well illustrate this fact.
Nice link Steve. Thanks for posting it.
Bring on Kyoto.
Looks like the faithul stay true to form.
Unable to answer the questions, they sieze on some small part that they can twist the meaning of.
Let’s have a look at two of the comparisons put forward.
“Smoking and lung cancer”. There have been some trials that show that people who smoke are more likely to have lung cancer, compared to those who didn’t smoke. There has been no “control earth with no emissions” studies, obviously.
“Influenza and virus”. Well if they did a series of trials that showed there was no virus present, fair enough. There HAVE been periods of global warming without emissions.
Ken Miles put up a reasonable argument. Though I would continue to argue that the amount we are putting out has such minute effects that it would be dwarfed by any sort of “natural” change in the environment.
I have read quite a bit on the subject, obviously not everything, which is why I said “I have not seen”, rather than “there is none”.
If you are able to focus on the susbstantial point, answer this question:
If human caused emissions are the primary reason for global warming, what has caused all the other variations in temperature over both the short and long term?
Uncle Milton,
A neat rhetorical reply. I had to read it twice, and still do not understand your point.
Do you actually understand the science being climate, or are you relying on popularised accounts published in the media for your understanding.
As a geoscientist, climate is an acute area of study as it affects the surface expression of minerals and rocks. We in the diamond exploration business are very good at recognising effects of weathering of minerals as the result of “weather”.
As for your comment “I have yet to see ANY science that proves that smoking causes lang cancer”, my decedent father, a physician and surgeon, one of the best in the game ( understandable when working as a surgeon in WWII and Indonesia to 1949 as an army surgeon) averred that people who get cancer, tend to smoke cigarettes. He had many patients who died of lung cancer who never inhaled the smoke from a cigarette.
I might add that my decedent father was a communist, or using the euphemism, social democrat, but science is science, and from his empirical knowledge, smoking is a symptom, not a cause.
I aknowledge that expertise, because the people at the coal-face know what is really going on.
Ken Miles,
while IR absorption might be a fact, in terms of the quantities involved, irrelevant.
I note from your comment above you supply no quantitative estimates of the effect you allege occurs.
Until you can supply some quantitative data to support your hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, stay out of scientifica areas of which you have zero knowledge.
Please.
Oh Ken, silly me,
you do have a means by which you can measure the IR input, etc, and the compare it with the rest of the energy input in a strictly quantitative way, have you?
Alan, I agree with your comment in general – lying now, getting caught later *can* be a valuable strategy in an election contest. However, I fail to see how it applies in this instance. Whether or not we are on track to meet our Kyoto target was hardly a big election issue, was it?
One reason why presenting optimistic kyoto news now ( i don’t think they are lying, i just think they are being overly optimistic, given the uncertainties in both measurement and projection) is because of the States.
There is a lot of pressure from the States for an Australian emissions trading scheme, which John Howard has ruled out. The Labor States are all pushing for more action on greenhouse, perhaps this is some weird federal-state issue?
It would also annoy bob carr, for two reasons:
a) Carr spends so much time talking on greenhouse issues, so what he says becomes less relevant if we are meeting our target
b) part of the reason we might meet our kyoto target is because of the NSW emissions reduction scheme
Louis,
What your father thought about lung cancer and smoking isn’t evidence of anything except his own ignorance.
Suffice to say 97% of people who get lung cancer are smokers.
As for the causality from lung cancer to smoking, do a google search and you’ll find everything you need to know.
BTW, if anyone is interested in the detailed basis of Australia’s greenhouse projections, they can be found here
Click to access tracking2004.pdf
I know I’ve posted something like this before, but it obviously needs restating.
In general, whenever a significant measure for environmental protection or regulation is proposed, opponents characteristically predict that it will have seriously negative, if not disastrous, economic and employment consequences. Top-down economic models are wheeled out in support of such claims. However, once the environmental protection/regulation measure is implemented, there is a striking lack of empirical support for the dire predictions of the modellers.
US economist Eban Goodstein looked at this issue in his book The Trade-Off Myth, and found that industry-sponsored economic models of the consequences of proposed environmental legislation in the US invariably overstated the costs, sometimes by orders of magnitude, and failed to predict the benefits. Closer to home, when I studied the economic costs and benefits of ending dredging of the Brisbane River for sand and gravel, I found that the relevant industry body’s hired economists were predicting massive disruption and job losses in the south-east Queensland construction industry if dredging were to be phased out. Dredging was phased out in the early 1990s, and there is no evidence that this was anything more than a small speed bump for the regional construction industry.
Basically, the economic models used to predict economic gloom and doom from greenhouse abatement measures are shot through with simplifying assumptions which bear no resemblance whatsoever to the real world, as well as often failing to factor in the economic effects of readily available “no regrets” measures (such as energy efficiency measures available with current technology or increased use of natural gas), and often assuming that policymakers will choose the crudest (and least politically popular) policy instruments in order to achieve emission reductions. Our blog host once co-authored a report for the Australia Institute on this very question, which I warmly recommend – check out http://www.tai.org.au for details.
Finally, in the long run any calculation of the economic consequences of greenhouse abatement programs must also try to take account of the economic consequences of unmitigated climate change, which will not be trivial.
Without any climate science qualifications (though I do have science degrees, so can find my way around sciemtific literature and the scientific method easily enough, thanks), I must say, I’ve seen enough refereed articles and enough scientific consensus on the issue to not have any doubts about the bigger picture of the mechanism. Sure it’s a big complex world and we don’t have the full picture, but the cast of thousands of reputable climatologists with good data behind them is, compared to the cast of a few with emitting industry funding behind them, quite overwhelming in their arguments.
As for the Australian Government’s stance on Kyoto, well I can only quote our glorious leader and say “it’s a nonsense”. Yes all of their criticism are valid, but to go from there to rejection of the only game in town is ridiculous. It’s all a matter of paying off your mates in the (declining employment) coal and steel industries, rather than considering the future employment and investment opportunities offered by renewables.
Still, John Howard has always looked backwards when it comes to the economy.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Thanks Steve for the NSW Govt. reference, and thanks Ken (but I was specifically asking for Australian refs.) And John Humphreys is obviously better at picking keywords than I am, as Australian estimates seem pretty rare to me.
As I have commented before, it seems to me that governments are assessing the costs of global warming to them against the costs to other countries seen as competitors, and deciding to act to reduce emissions or to do nothing on the basis of estimates of comparative advantage/ disadvantage. See my comment (26/10/04) on Prof. Quiggin’s post “Kyoto Ratified!” of 23/10/04.
Once you start thinking like this, you see an interesting parallel with the discussion on “Consequentialism for Beginners” beginning with Prof. Quiggin’s post of 8/12/04. Obviously, those who think that aggressive war can provide net gains to the aggressor would react to global warming in the way I described above. Such countries would refuse ratification of Kyoto if they thought that global warming would (comparatively) benefit them. Those who are opposed to aggressive war would seek international action by as many nations as possible to prevent global warming even if they foresaw a comparative benefit accruing to them. And similar caveats about imperfect knowledge, etc. would be put forward.
I suspect the US Govt. believes the USA has less to lose from global warming than others, so (as a “pre-emptor”) it opposes ratification.
you do have a means by which you can measure the IR input, etc, and the compare it with the rest of the energy input in a strictly quantitative way, have you?
Yes. Spectroscopy.
gordon, I suspect your analysis is spot on. And, using the analogy from the other thread, perhaps they do think they are running the TAB.
A timely comment on the consensus from the relatively august publication Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
A somewhat more credible review than “Coal Users monthly”
No one seems to have considered the fact that the earth’s climate system is a coupled, non linear chaotic system, and as such predictions of future climate states is impossible.
Source: Executive Summary of the IPCC.
If this is so, then the whole lot of you have a problem. You do not understand plain English – so I repeat as a geoscientist, you CANNOT predict future climate states because we don’t understand it.
Kyoto is nothing simpler than a metamorphis of communism.
Louis, your own marketing blurb describes you as
“Regarded as the best diamond field geologist in Australia with over 23 years experience. Ex John Taylors, WMC and De Beers. Experience in Africa and Australia. Proven track record in finding kimberlites. Proficient in GIS and owns fully setup office with workstations and plotter.”
Why don’t you explain to us communists how your extensive knowledge of diamonds makes you an expert on climate science?
predictions of future climate states are impossible?
best tell these guys not to bother then: http://www.bom.gov.au/
Unsurprisingly, Louis hasn’t included the full quote from the IPCC.
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.
Source.
Paul Norton — nothing says bias like “tai”… 🙂 But I agree that many people underestimate the adaptive capacity of us human creatures. Correcting for this will probably decrease both the costs of Kyoto and the costs of global warming.
Also, it is pretty much impossible to test the accuracy of GE models after the fact simply because ceteris never is parabis. That doesn’t necessarily mean GE models are useless. In some situations, they can appear quite accurate.
And in my opinion, it is better to do some (albeit limited) analysis than to do none. I find that an unfortunate reality of politics is that if you don’t put a number on something, then people often make decisions assuming that thing doesn’t matter. For that reason, analysis and a number can help to focus attention on issues that could otherwise be ignored.
In case a causal reader comes across this thread, it might be important to point out that while Louis Hissink likes to use his geoscience background as an argument from authority, his views are very far from mainstream geology. For example, he doesn’t believe in plate tectonics. His views on evolution are left as an exercise for the reader.
Loius Hissink also says “Velikovsky generally got it right” and “And what of geology, based on Darwin’s and Lyell’s uniformist doctrines. Its rigid view-of time not based in fact, but from the more rigid doctrine of Darwinian Evolution, which by dealing with a strictly mechanical or chemical biosphere or universe could not help but conceive of a long drawn out process to produce the diversity of species known today and in the fossil record.”
Let’s not forget his claim that lung cancer causes smoking.
I see messenger shooting has reached an artform here.
Uncle Milton, you lie – I mentioned my recently decedent father, a surgeon and physician, suggested that people who developed lung cancer, also tended to smoke. I categorily never stated that.
As for Tim Lambert, linking me with Velikovsky is basically admitting he has nothing left in his meagre intellectual armoury other than vilifying me.
In both cases your arguments are bankrupt.